memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2009
About: To accommodate the influx of discussion on the pending feature film, older discussions for this talk page can be found in the 2006, 2007, 2008 archives, and 2009 archives (pre-release). Post-release discussion * See: Forum:Star Trek (film) - SPOILERS - Where to place new information (post-release discussion) Removed from article In the "references to previous episodes and films", I've removed this: :*When Spock and Sarek talk in the transporter room, the number and letter on one of the doors is M-3110; the numbers add up to 5, possibly an indirect reference to the M-5 supercomputer. This seems like way too much of a reach to me. What do others think? —Josiah Rowe 04:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :I agree. I think that its just a coincidence IndyK1ng 04:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I'm removing this, too, on the same grounds: :* The opening battle sequence between the and the Narada features the intentional collision of a starship into an enemy vessel as well as the death of a crewmember as a result of being "blown out" of a starship and into space because of a hull breach and the resulting depressurization of the ship. Both are possible references to . Depressurization (demonstrated with a crewmember floating in space) and putting a starship on collision course seem to me to be fairly common "space battle" tropes. Since Abrams said that he hadn't even seen Nemesis, it seems unlikely to me that these would be intended as references to that film. —Josiah Rowe 17:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Admiral Archer's beagle Is there anything going to be put in about the reference to admiral archer and his dog. More than likely its supposed to be a reference to archer from enterprise seeing as this dog porthos was also a beagle :The film's writers have confirmed that this is a reference to Enterprise, but there's some dispute over whether the fact that it's a reference (out-of-universe) also means that the "Admiral Archer" mentioned is Jonathan Archer or not. At the moment, there is a page for "Admiral Archer" at Archer, and there's a note in the "Background" section of Jonathan Archer. There's some discussion about how to handle this at Talk:Jonathan Archer#Scotty and Archer's Beagle, Talk:Archer and Talk:Porthos#Admiral Archer's beagle. —Josiah Rowe 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC) References to previous Star Trek episodes and films, and other media This entire section needs to be removed or reedited. Too many "might be", "may be" and other "possible" type references without incites. — Morder 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :That's not that unusual, but here's one everyone seems to have missed. 47 Klingon ships? Yeah. Graptor 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::Personally I think the outpost looked like a DHARMA Hatch.- JustPhil 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :*''When the Enterpise rises out of Titan, its similar to when the Enterprise arises from the Mutara Nebula ready to attack Khan.'' Unless specifically stated to be a reference all references should really be removed as they're too subjective. For instance the above one is a stretch, especially since it didn't arise from the nebula it just sunk below and came up from behind... — Morder 12:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :::Well, i think, it would be nice to make two sections. One as it is now and another for the specualtions. Because everyone will have another opinion, how something could be inspired by something etc. Speculations about references not only to episodes and films, coudl be in the second "subchapter" (like the names of shuttles: Gilliam and Moore). --Mvek 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC) This site is not for opinions it's for facts that can be verified. So no, speculations are not allowed. — Morder 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) : Really? Then why have you not yet removed the "Memorable Quotes" section? The entire section is speculation and opinion. Unless of course you think you can find some sort of documented evidence that each of the quotes is in fact "memorable". Please get over yourself. Wikis, no matter how much work goes into them, are not encyclopedias. They're fan pages. 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Quotes and speculation are not the same thing. For the record, I've been one who would like see the Memorable Quotes section removed entirely but I'm not the only deciding factor in that. — Morder 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC) ::::I agree that the section was a magnet for unfounded speculation, but I think that requiring a citation for every entry may be going too far. Do we really need a citation for noting that McCoy says "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?" in and ? Similarly, what was the reasoning for removing Spock's Sherlock Holmes reference "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains — however improbable — must be the truth", which he attributed to "a human ancestor" in ? The note about the origins of the name "Nyota" for Uhura also seems worth keeping to me. —Josiah Rowe 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Without having a specific citation for the reference it will always be filled with someones thoughts as to what is a reference and thus too much speculation and not enough fact. With regards to your example of the phrase "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?" it's just something he's said before. Not necessarily a reference...he's also said "I'm a doctor no a..." - doesn't mean it's a reference to every single episode...it's just the way his character is. Similar to the "if you eliminate..." - Oh and the Nyota note belongs on her page. — Morder 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::::But isn't it noteworthy that the film contains dialogue that's reused from former Star Trek episodes and films? I'm not talking about everyday remarks like "hello" or "yes, sir", which could be repeated coincidentally — "Are you out of your Vulcan mind" is clearly deliberate. So is the Sherlock Holmes line. I don't see the advantage in quibbling over whether it's a reference to a specific episode or to the way the character is; either way, it's a reference. And it's noteworthy. —Josiah Rowe 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) The problem is not whether that is the issue it's what makes your (not yours but the general your) reference any more valid that any other reference? — Morder 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Common sense. —Josiah Rowe 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, we have lots of that around here...it's easier to enforce rules when you have a standard common sense doesn't apply when people get emotional over their great contributions to this site..."how dare we remove one that doesn't meet someone else's idea of what a reference is". :) — Morder 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::::I see what you mean, but I still think it's not too difficult to establish a consensus among active editors that certain references are indeed noteworthy. Aside from the general principle that "references should be cited as references", does anyone really doubt that those two lines are references, and should be listed as such? I'm suggesting that the standard could be either a citation from one of the filmmakers that it's a deliberate reference or a consensus of editors that it's sufficiently clear, unambiguous and noteworthy to merit mention in the article. —Josiah Rowe 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC) :::::I removed all the incite tags from notes that simply state facts. Some of the tags were a bit silly, such as on "Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) recites the famous "Space, the final frontier..." monologue at the end of the film for the first time since ." or the note about the mud fleas first appearing in Enterprise. :::::As for the rest, I'm sure if someone goes through all the interviews they could track down a few more citations. Surely Olson = "redshirt" has been mentioned, for example.– Cleanse 07:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC) :::::How about we change the name of the section to "Continuity", which is the title we use on many episode pages? This avoids the suggestion that all of these are intentional references/homages. Rather, it means the section is a list of events, places, animals etc. previously established on Star Trek. To claim that it is an intentional reference would still require a citation, but it would mean there is no problem with objectively stating where mud fleas, Cardassians etc. come from.– Cleanse 23:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Sounds like a plan :) — Morder 23:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ::::I'll go ahead and do this. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert and discuss further. —Josiah Rowe 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC) How Time Travel Changed The Way Starfleet Makes Bridges So we all noticed the much more graphically-oriented bridge design. Technical readouts on the main screen instead of just camera shots, Scotty's eyepiece, Chekov's easy-to-read sensor HUD - it's wonderful! But why didn't they have those things in the "Prime" universe? Very simple. Necessity is the mother of invention. In the Prime Universe, no insane Romulan killship from the future emerged from a black hole randomly and destroyed a Federation ship only to disappear into the night for almost three decades. And when nothing happens... no one reacts! UNIVERSE PRIME: The designers of the USS Kelvin believed their design was suitable for the universe they were living in. It was not exactly costly to produce, and it completed all of its missions. More ships were commissioned based on this design, with simplicity of interface and an emphasis on scientific analysis at the core of its construction. The turreted guns put on the vessel were never used, so they were phased out of later models. Not until Captain Kirk encounters the Romulan Bird of Prey and the Klingon Cold War starts does Starfleet realize the military necessity of their vessels. However, even based on the Kelvin's design, Starfleet Operating Systems, targeting software, and phaser strength are all more than a match for their galactic neighbors at the time. UNIVERSE SECOND (or Abrams Universe): The designers of the USS Kelvin were sent back to the drawing board when their vessel was destroyed. Obviously the Federation's neighbors were more technologically advanced than previously believed, and the Romulans pose a greater threat than ever imagined. In reaction several new technologies are proposed by Starfleet Command: improved turreted phaser systems, graphical scan interfaces that require less training to operate due to the high propensity for Senior Officer mortality in battle, improved nacelle design to avoid collapse under key stress points, tactical readouts on the main screen through unified sensor grids, and in improved cooling system for the main plasma relays to avoid overheating when exerting more than %100 capacity. All of these sudden necessities redefined the way Starfleet thought about building ships. Now, when I saw the movie, I thought this was OBVIOUS. I mean, this is the point of the opening scene, no? To account for EVERYTHING that is different. And it does! Really! Just think about it! I don't think this is fan speculation. This is common sense! -- 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :I am glad this works for you. Do you think this also explains why the new movie is just a recycled Hollywood plastic hollow third-grade comic bookish piece of crap with no substance or soul to it whatsoever?—Eta Carinae 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::This page isn't a forum to discuss timeline changes or film quality (see and MA:NOT). Please keep comments to what should and shouldn't be placed on this page.--Tim Thomason 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :I understand and apologize. I am in the process of burying something that is very dear to me, and could not control my rage outburst very well after having watched the "movie". Fell free to delete this thread altogether; I won't take any offense. Best of luck with the rest of Memory Alpha.—Eta Carinae 19:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::I suggest that this thread indeed be deleted. It has nothing to do with improving the article. It's rather an essay about one part of the film and someone else's negative reaction to it. Perhaps we can move this somewhere else, but it shouldn't be taking up this much space on an article talkpage when it has nothing to do with the article in question. -FC 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::I reverted the blanking of the section since the proper way to remove this would be a formal move by an admin or a deletion of the original entries onto the talk page. Blanking it would actually be against established procedure, as far as I know. -FC 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::I can't believe you're taking this so seriously, he made a minor comment about the film and you want to blank the page? This is what is wrong with wikis, you get a bunch of mindless people following the rules to the letter like it was handed down by Roddenberry himself. It is essentially a dictatorship. My two cents. Wheatleya 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) :::::This is a discussion page, no? Are we not allowed to discuss the movie? Because... that's silly. Even people who hated the movie (which most certainly does not include me) should be free to pop off their mouths here. It's not like we're doing it ON the main page. We're discussing random crap about the movie on the movie's discussion page. Calm down. Jeez. -- 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::It is a page to discuss the writing of the article - not "random crap", as you put it. There are community websites specialized on that - while we're specialized on writing an encyclopedia. -- Cid Highwind 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::: Friend, this is the internet. None of this matters that much. Chill out. Established procedure and specialists belong in the military, where it's a matter of life or death. This is a text page about a sci-fi movie. Besides, this isn't the encyclopedia portion of the website. We're just nerds kicking around ideas on the internets. -- 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Um, shouldn't we consider than history was already altered before all of this in First Contact? I mean, the Borg went back in time and so did the Enterprise E so it is certainly possible that technology from the future was already altering the timeline long "before" the events of the new movie. :: That depends. We can't be certain if the events of First Contact effected both universes. I also always took the events of First Contact, especially in light of the events of the Enterprise episode with the Borg, to be a sort of Gary Seven situation. You know, the people going back in time are products of their own interference in the time stream. Therefore the TOS episodes would have happened not just in spite of, but BECAUSE of the events of First Contact. -- 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Somehow you all missed Tim's post above. This conversation is over. Please do not post here anymore. Thanks. — Morder 21:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Removed comments I have removed the following speculative/uncited comments. Any that can be backed up with evidence can be put back. *During Spock's conversation with his mother on Vulcan, he mentions that feeling "fine" is not acceptable. This may be a reference to when the test asks Spock "How do you feel?" Spock is unable to provide an answer until the end of the film: "I feel fine." *As Kirk proceeds through the ''Kobayashi Maru'' scenario test, he is seen eating an apple, which may be a reference to the fact that he was eating an apple while recounting the story to Saavik in the Genesis cave below Regula in . *Chekov's difficulty in pronouncing the letter V through his accent ("Victor Victor") is an allusion to the scene in where he has difficulty pronouncing "nuclear vessels." * Spock's refusal to comment on Uhura's first name is likely a reference to the dubious canonicity of the name prior to the film's release. * Spock enabling Scotty to develop his transwarp beaming system is similar to when Scotty himself gave Dr. Nichols the formula for transparent aluminum in . * The destruction of Vulcan may reference the destruction of the Genesis planet in . In particular, the attempted transport of Spock, his parents, and the Vulcan council off of the planet (as the seismic disturbances tear the planet apart and the ground beneath the characters begins to collapse) resembles the transport of Kirk and Spock off of Genesis. In both cases the destruction of the planet is accompanied by the death of a beloved family member of one of the main characters (David Marcus and Amanda Grayson). * The Federation council's decision to give command of the Enterprise to Kirk because of his efforts to save Earth from destruction, despite his previous insubordination, at the finale of the film, strongly resembles the finale of . * Scotty's companion on the Delta Vega colony may have been a Kolaran: in the scene where he is introduced, he takes off his goggle in the same manner as a Kolaran does at the conclusion of the car chase in . * Leonard Nimoy's line "I am Spock" could be a reference to his second autobiography of the same name, as well as returning to the character after an 18 year gap.--31dot 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) More, plus reasons for removal: * When Bones pulls Kirk into shuttlecraft transport to the Enterprise, notice the name of shuttle craft next to the doors. It is Gilliam - this might be reference to script supervisor Dawn Gilliam. (not a reference to any past movie or show) * Nero yells "SPOCK!" twice after finding out Spock had stolen the Jellyfish, much in the same way Kirk exclaims "Khan!" twice in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. (opinion, and a stretch, to boot) * Chekov's reporting to that there is an intruder resembles Chekov telling Admiral James T. Kirk there is an intruder ( ). (opinion, and a stretch) * Spock reveals that the Romulans share a common ancestry with the Vulcans. In the TOS episode , Spock (Prime) seems not to know of any connection; however, this difference could be due to Nero's prior appearance in 2233. In fact, it was stated in that episode that no one had ever seen a Romulan, even during the Earth-Romulan war a century previous. This greatly tied the hands of Enterprise writers to feature Romulans in an episode but not let them be seen. (more of a nitpick than pointing out a reference) * Captain Richard Robau's mention of shoring up the hull plating during the attack on the Kelvin may be an homage to Star Trek: Enterprise -- raising the shields in the 22nd century was performed by "polarizing hull plating." (I don't recall such a mention, although Robau did say "polarize the viewscreen", which may or may not have been a ref to Enterprise) * When Spock is called forward after being revealed as Kirk's accuser for cheating during the Kobayashi Maru test, he stands up and quickly tugs down the front of his jacket. This is a possible reference to the habit of Patrick Stewart to do the same after standing up from the captain's chair in TNG, often referred to by the cast as the Picard maneuver. (speculation) * Chekov's "televised" speech to the entire crew -- and scenes of the crew watching him on the screen -- are reminiscent of Sybok announcing his intentions on screen to the crew in . (a stretch) * Spock's half-brother Sybok is not mentioned in this film, which may have been the producer's way of honoring / validating Gene Roddenberry's belief that the character of Sybok was apocryphal. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sybok (or maybe they just didn't write him in because it wasn't needed or couldn't fit him in; not a reference to a prior movie or TV show, anyway) --From Andoria with Love 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "...large Orange County hangar..." I have a feeling that the location referred to can only be one of two old blimp hangars aboard what was Marine Corps Air Station Tustin. knoodelhed 17:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :Yup, I think you're right. The El Toro Marine Corps Station in Irvine doesnt have a hangar (at least not one that can be used), so this must be the one. – Distantlycharmed 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Vulcan's sky is red, but in the movie it looks blue. What's up? :The sky is. :) Seriously, though, perhaps the atmospheric conditions on Vulcan vary enough that sometimes the sky is red and sometimes it's blue. Perhaps the ceremony in took place at sunset, or after a dust storm. (I know that we've seen red or reddish skies in other episodes and films, but you get the point.) —Josiah Rowe 06:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC) :Update: Roberto Orci says here (comments section, post #456) that Vulcan's red sky is seasonal. —Josiah Rowe 08:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ::Just to point out, in the ENT episode , Archer asks T'Pol if "the sky ever get this blue on Vulcan?" to which she replies "Occasionally."--NME 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Quality Given the "casual" nature of the film for its appeal to a general populace, i think we can expect to see more poor writing. WWhat i mean is that there was wording and slang that is unbecoming of an encyclopedia that i had to edit out. Just keep your eyes open and correct them. For instance, when it spoke of kirk saying he is going to study but instead meets the orion hthe writer opted to use language like sarcasm and words like "hooking up". :This site has a policy of inform and '''entertain'. And "study" was the term used in the movie and has every place here. — Morder 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC) :You mean like inability to capitalize your words, lazy typos like "WWhat" and "hthe", and sentence fragments? Perhaps you're not the most qualified to complain of other contributors' writing ability. Deleted Scenes Since this section hasn't been expanded upon, I was wondering if I might add that two seconds of Nero on Rura Penthe shows up in the first theatrical trailer? I'll refrain from changing anything until I get a response. (Omega05 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)) :There is also a shot of Nero on Rura Penthe during Spock's mind meld. In fact, it's this shot right here. As for expanding deleted scene info, it would probably be best if you did so on this page. The movie's article should just include a list of the deleted scenes and a link to the delete scenes page for more info. --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Some of the deleted scenes will probably be released in the next year or so. I'd just table the issue for a while until more info becomes available. No hurry.--Hribar 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Moved from article I removed this from the article and placed it here as this is the proper location: From : Request: Can the moderator please let us know what would meet the criteria of "citation needed" for this section -- beyond the name of the episode/movie? it isn't clear. Thank you. "this section" in the request refers to the "References to previous Star Trek episodes and films, and other media" section. Moved by Interrupt feed 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Queston since this movie created an alternate timeline/universe, are the events in the ST:TNG, ST:DS9, and ST:VOY the same or "erased"? I ask because in an interview with the writer's of this movie they talk about destiny and that Kirk's crew still came together because the new time line was "correcting" or "mending" itself and returning to it's default state, if this is true then most of the events from the shows (ST:TOS, ST:TAS, and all the 24th C. ones) should still take place only with the ship and technology being altered (one could argue that the Klingon's, Romulian's and other Warp able races scanned the federation starships and created more advanced weapons, plus the Romulian/Klingion treated might still take place if the Klingion fleet that Nero destroyed never communicated who attacked them) The issue only comes to confussion with the size of the NCC-1701 (alternate) if it is as big as the writers claim them the Federation Galaxy class starships must have been named as a joke (or Picard's crew lied to us for 7 years about the number of crew and deck size, it would explain the error in 1st contact about the NCC-1701-E having 26 or 29 decks, and the NCC-1701-A having 71 decks in ST:5) -- Sithlord :As said by the writers, Nero's encursion created a different, parallel timeline which exists in addition to the previous one. So both exist at the same time.--31dot 14:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) true but the whole point of the movie was to show the destinies of the crew, that no matter what changes took place Kirk still became Capt. of the Enterprise, Spock still became his 1st officer, ect. so would the events in ST:TOS still take place? (Kirk meeting Khan, the Tribbles, Klingon Kor, Klang, koloth, Spocks death and rebirth, the Enterprise going boom over genesis)only with new technology due to Nero's changes would the USS Enterprise's history still be grand enough to have an USS Enterprise A, B, C, D, E so that in 2374 Picard will still command his 2 Enterprise's and meet Kirk when he did, or is the future of this timeline unknown, and Picard might never be born? -- Sithlord ::You mean will the events seen in the original timeline take place in the new, alternate reality? Well, we won't know until the stories are written, but the writers have stated that it's logical to assume some events would still take place. For example, both V'Ger and the whale probe will both still threaten Earth. Of course, the events won't play out exactly as they did in the prime universe, but the outcomes could be similar. In all honesty, though, at this point, it's anybody's guess. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC) thank you that is what i was looking for, if all the event in the "old" timeline was altered by Nero's changes then the Kelvin was the most important ship ever created by anyone, if you stop and think of things like V'Ger, Whale Probe, Borg, Breen, Dominion, the 23rd C. Romulians, one federation ship going boom (with most of the crew living 800 people saved per Pike) could not have stopped all of the events seen in the "old" timeline (although it would be funny to see in the next movie the Enterprise being called away just as the ship finds the Botnay bay with Kirk saying "well it was 400 years old no one would be alive in it.")-- Sithlord There's no possible way the future of the new universe could be anything like the old universe. The original Enterprise has pulse phaser cannons for goodness sakes! All those times the original Enterprise was in danger and just needed more power to turn a nail-biting episode into a snooze-fest, now it's a snooze-fest. By the time they get to the Enterprise-D, the Federation will have probably explored the entire galaxy, destroyed the Borg like they were nothing, and be as bored as the Organians probably are. Just face it folks, everything you spent decades of your life watching and being a fan of has, in one fell-swoop, been destroyed and is completely irrelevant. You may as well stop being Star Trek fans now, 'cause if you start being fans of this universe the writers will probably just destroy it too. Decades of series and movies, completely thrown out the window. Thanks for this movie! All of the Star Trek fan world appreciates it! ( 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)) ::I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is not a forum to express your opinions of the movie. The writers of the movie have said that they believe some things in the main timeline happened in the new one as well. That's not our opinion, they said it. Unless you feel like you have to throw away all your Star Trek DVDs, the main timeline is no more or less relevant than it was before.--31dot 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Nero I would like to hear other peoples opinions on the films villain, Nero. I think he was rather underdeveloped and disappointing. Other villains star trek has had have been political leaders, military officers, powerful individuals, with strong and usually complex motives. Nero was simply a miner out for petty revenge. This is simply how I see it, did anyone else feel that way? --Preator 19:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) :Talk pages are not for that type of discussion, the trekbbs is a better place for that. --Jörg 19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC) ::Correct. We don't use talk pages for forums.- JustPhil 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, didn't mean to misuse the talk page. Just wasn't sure where else to ask the question. --Preator 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) :::Was there ever an explicit reasoning for the name "Nero"? Such as a confirmation that it alluded to the Roman terminology, culture et al that Romulan characters exhibited. Perhaps even regret at choosing such an overtly, at least notionally, human name? 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Yes, it was attributed to to the Roman name. 04:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Summary shortening This movie's summary needs to be shortened way down to "just the facts," as it were. We don't need to know every single thing that happens in the movie. Wikipedia has a nice, short summary on the film, though I prefer telling the story as it unfolds in the film. Basically, the summary needs to be about the same length as the one at Wikipedia while using the same story-telling style used in the MA article. Think we can accomplish that? (Note: I know we have many other movie and episode pages with super-long summaries; those need to be shortened, as well. Yes, these include the ones I helped write several years ago.) --From Andoria with Love 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) :I can't say I agree in this case. I don't see anything in the MA policies that say the summaries need to be short. Personally I think good, detailed summaries are fun to write at times and I think that it helps the pages. And while I know that this is a wiki page ala Wikipedia, there's many pages on Wikipedia that have detailed summaries. I should know, having written, or helped write a few of them. So I don't see what it hurts here to have lengthy summaries at times. Some of the contributors prefer good details like that. leandar 13:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) ::I absolutely agree with From Andoria with Love - it looks more like a novelization (rather than encyclopedic) as it is now. The first paragraph alone could be reduced to two sentences and more probably just one sentence. I think the article is "suffering" because it is a new Star Trek film and we are all excited to add to it. ::On another note does it matter what Wikipedia does? Honestly curious. Do we use Wikipedia as a template or for guidance? DhaliaUnsung 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) RE: Leandar -- There is currently no policy on the length of a summary (that I know of), this is a matter of community preference. I gave my opinion and now I leave it to other community members (such as yourself) to give their own. If consensus says we shorten it, great! If not, oh well. RE:DhaliaUnsung -- I agree, we can tell the whole story without writing every single detail. That is what the other articles are for, after all. To answer your question, though, we don't have to use Wikipedia, I just did for this instance. I like the "get-to-the-point" style of the Wikipedia summary; I was just saying I would this summary to be more like that summary (with the exception of the order of the narrative). --From Andoria with Love 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) :::For what it's worth, we've been through that whole discussion in the past, with all the arguments pro and contra lengthy "summaries". Fact is - the longer that section gets, the more it becomes a "retelling" instead of a summary. Being less detailed than the original product is the whole point of a summary. Also, some people don't want retellings, but just the quick facts, so they shouldn't be deprived of that. So, a suggestion that had been made was to have ''both, a short summary and a long retelling of the story. At this point of the discussion, the fundamental question is: do we even want both, and is a fully detailed retelling of a story within our scope (encyclopedia) and/or allowed as "fair use"? :::My personal opinion: "Longer" doesn't equal "better" in this case - far from it, I'd rather have a three minute read that helps me remember the episode/film, than a half hour read that turns out to be missing the final acts, because the writer lost interest in continuing his novelization. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC) ::::RE: From Andoria With Love - Of course, I'm not trying to start an argument here, I hope you don't think I was. I accept your opinion and offer mine as well in the same vein. If it's eventually decided that we need to have shorter summaries then I'll accept that, just as you will if they like the longer ones. I won't like it terribly if they're shortened, but I'll live with it. lol ::::Maybe it's just that I read a lot and so the longer summaries don't bother me, in fact I enjoy the summaries that are longer, probably just because of my more extensive reading habits. leandar 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) :::::You like to read a lot too? Great! I just finished Shogun and I'm usually reading 2 or 3 books at a time. But that's kinda besides the point. I don't think Memory Alpha is here for the "novelizations" is all. As Cid Highwind said if someone comes to memory alpha searching for a summary to help them remember the movie/television show, they aren't going to want to read three pages first. :::::That said, I can see how reading about the show would be fun. Maybe it would be possible to have a link to "extended summary" if the community feels it's warranted? :::::''I hope my post is read in the lighthearted and hopefully helpful manner in which it was written. DhaliaUnsung Removed apple comment Removed the following after the Biblical portion was added. The whole passage is speculative unless it can be cited. Cadet Kirk eating an apple while taking the Kobayashi Maru test for the third time may be an homage to the scene in , where Kirk explains to Saavik -- while munching on an apple from the Genesis cave -- how he beat the Kobayashi Maru. This repeated reference to eating an apple can be seen as a proverbial nudge to the Biblical story of creation, particularly in reference to the Genesis project. The Kobayashi Maru is a proverbial forbidden fruit, in that every other Starfleet test is able to be passed. This level of allusion isn't uncommon for either Star Trek II writer/director Nicholas Meyer (better known for writing the solitary Sherlock Holmes novel considered canon, but not written by Doyle, the Seven Percent Solution) or Bad Robot productions (which made, among other series, Lost; which features numerous allusions to other works). --31dot 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC) TLA It seems like there was a tradition for a while of referring to each division of Trek with a three-letter name; TOS, VOY, ENT and so on. Has anyone proposed one for the new movies, or is the tradition pretty much over? --Andrew Nagy 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :Well, only a few movies have a 3 letter symbol but STF would probably be the one chosen but unnecessary for now. :) — Morder 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::Yah, only seven of the movies have three-letter abbreviations (TMP, TVH, TFF, TUC, GEN, INS, NEM); two are four-letter (TWOK and TSFS) while one is two-letter (FC). For the new movie, ST09 has been the abbreviation I've been seeing the most. There are a few other abbreviations which I have seen that are either not commonly used or have been discontinued (STXI, JJT Trek, AST Star Trek or Alternate Star Trek, ART Reality Trek, NST Star Trek, etc.) None of them are appealing to me; I would just go with ST09... or just plain ST. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::On another note, I think its pretty interesting how we (Memory Alpha) seem to be setting the trend on a lot of these issues. For example, here we had a long debate, leading to the "alternate timeline" consensus, which not only seems to have caught on, but people are citing Memory Alpha as their source on the "official" nomenclature. Considering that many Star Trek authors, and even some of the creative team on the film cite Memory Alpha as a resource, we should always be keeping in mind the fact that we are, to a very small degree, framing Stark Trek. I'm kind of rambling. Sorry. --- Jaz 03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC) :::Thinking further, TNM for The New Movies makes a kind of sense. --Andrew Nagy 02:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Spock's Quote What does Spock Prime say when he leaves the ceremony at the end of the film?- JustPhil 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC) -Thrusters on Full– John Sheppard 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Searching for the Trek09 movie page on Memory Alpha Just now as I was trying to find a piece of information regarding the 2009 "Star Trek" film, I had a very difficult time finding the page. I had to jump through the hoops of going through two or three other pages before I found a link here (I wasn't aware of "ST09" until I read the paragraph above). Would it be worthwhile to create some other redirect pages for predictably common search parameters? On IMDB, I've most commonly seen it referred to a "Trek09", which would be my first recommendation. Considering that'll be one of the more commonly requested pages for a good while (I'd guess), it seems reasonable that at least until the community decides on a fairly universally agreed upon abbreviation we should make things easy on people. Just a suggestion. YMMV. Hossrex 06:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC) :Using the movie's official title as a search term leads me to Star Trek, an article about the franchise as a whole, where is prominently linked in the first paragraph. Is that not the search term one would enter first? -- Cid Highwind 09:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)